Glenn Greenwald defend Rand Paul against "Democratic myths"

[ljm2002]

9. Eric Holder is a lawyer...

...and lawyers carefully craft their words.

Here is Holder's recasting of the question of whether the President can order a drone kill against an American citizen: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ (emphasis mine)

Note the added clause "not engaged in combat". That phrase was not used in any question to this administration about the use of drones, whether the question was from Rand Paul or anyone else.

That phrase was carefully added by Eric Holder, as a sort of sleight of hand, so that he could give a simple "No" answer. But the "No" answer was to a question that was never posed.

Worse, the answer to the question as posed, very clearly implies that the President (any President, not just this one), CAN order a drone kill against an American citizen on American soil. All he has to do is claim the citizen in question is "engaged in combat".

Again with the lawyerspeak: We know, for example, that peaceful activists are sometimes classified as "terrorists". And "terrorists", by definition, are engaged in combat.

I would have been happier if Holder had refused to answer the question. As it is, he has indeed taken the stance that the President can order a drone kill of an American citizen on American soil. And of course we already know the President can order a drone kill of an American citizen outside of this country, since he has done so in a very public fashion.

Look, I don't like Rand Paul any better than you do. Sure he's hypocritical, and sure he's grandstanding on this issue, and sure the fact that Obama is our President has a lot to do with his choice of when to take a stand. All that said, he is still on the right side of this issue, IMNSHO.